[Bug lto/113712] [11/12/13/14 Regression] lto crash: when building 641.leela_s peek with Example-gcc-linux-x86.cfg (SPEC2017 1.1.9) since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712 --- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor --- I have access to the benchmark and building it with -fprofile-generate it fails for me (with an ICE in add_symbol_to_partition_1) only when I use -fno-use-linker-plugin and either -std=c++11 or -std=c++03. Using -std=c++14 also avoids the issue. In any event, -fno-use-linker-plugin looks necessary.
[Bug lto/113712] [11/12/13/14 Regression] lto crash: when building 641.leela_s peek with Example-gcc-linux-x86.cfg (SPEC2017 1.1.9) since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712 --- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #18) > (In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #17) > > I've bisected this (using the test from Andrew Pinski) to > > r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797 > > That's a coincidence, with -fno-ipa-sra the testcase fails even earlier, > IPA-SRA was just hiding it, most probably by localizing some symbol before > the linking stage. > > Bugs that are only reproducible with -fno-use-linker-plugin are unlikely to > get a high priority. But I understand that the original issue does not need > it? I am not 100% sure if the original reported issue had been using the LTO plugin because I could not reproduce it when using the plugin. > > (Also, the issue is supposed to be reproducible ton x86_64-linux, right?) Yes it is supposed to be reproducible on x86_64; I reduced it there.
[Bug lto/113712] [11/12/13/14 Regression] lto crash: when building 641.leela_s peek with Example-gcc-linux-x86.cfg (SPEC2017 1.1.9) since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712 --- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #17) > I've bisected this (using the test from Andrew Pinski) to > r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797 That's a coincidence, with -fno-ipa-sra the testcase fails even earlier, IPA-SRA was just hiding it, most probably by localizing some symbol before the linking stage. Bugs that are only reproducible with -fno-use-linker-plugin are unlikely to get a high priority. But I understand that the original issue does not need it? (Also, the issue is supposed to be reproducible ton x86_64-linux, right?)
[Bug lto/113712] [11/12/13/14 Regression] lto crash: when building 641.leela_s peek with Example-gcc-linux-x86.cfg (SPEC2017 1.1.9)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | CC||mjambor at suse dot cz, ||pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #17 from Filip Kastl --- I've bisected this (using the test from Andrew Pinski) to r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797
[Bug lto/113712] [11/12/13/14 Regression] lto crash: when building 641.leela_s peek with Example-gcc-linux-x86.cfg (SPEC2017 1.1.9)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||26163 Priority|P3 |P2 Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 [Bug 26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)
[Bug lto/113712] [11/12/13/14 Regression] lto crash: when building 641.leela_s peek with Example-gcc-linux-x86.cfg (SPEC2017 1.1.9)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113712 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, ||needs-bisection Known to fail||10.1.0, 12.1.0 Known to work||8.1.0, 9.1.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Target Milestone|--- |11.5 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|lto crash: when building|[11/12/13/14 Regression] |641.leela_s peek with |lto crash: when building |Example-gcc-linux-x86.cfg |641.leela_s peek with |(SPEC2017 1.1.9)|Example-gcc-linux-x86.cfg ||(SPEC2017 1.1.9) --- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski --- Confirmed.
